Tom “The Ham Sandwich” DeLay
So Tom, The Hammer, er make that Tom, "The Ham Sandwich,"
DeLay has now been re-indicted on a pair of money laundering charges — enough to put him behind bars for the
rest of his life.
I mean that is what we’re now going to hear from the blindest of
the Bushies, isn’t it? That any D.A. can get a grand jury to indict even a ham
sandwich. No doubt. Except in this case we’re talking about a live piggy, not
its smoked and canned little rump.
These, of course, are the charges that DeLay’s case merit.
From the documents already made public we can see that’s exactly what Mister
Dee-Lay was doing — laundering corporate money illegally into state legislative
campaigns.
Now the fun really begins. Not just watching The Ham
Sandwich get basted. But also watching to just what depths of partisan denial
so many Republicans will now stoop. Not that the GOP has any monopoly on this sort
of hypocrisy. Democrats are just as adept; millions of them spent the last two
years of the Clinton administration rationalizing away Big Bill’s sleaze. That the
Chief Executive of the United States lied under oath as a defendant in a sexual
harassment case and conspired to suborn perjury was (and is still is blithely reduced)
to “getting a blow job.” Right.
Enough about Clinton. Back to DeLay. Time for you
Republicans and conservatives to show us that you are every bit as craven as
the Clintonistas. Just like them you will first check your voter registration
card before deciding what is right and what is wrong. For the Democrats, it was
all about Ken Starr and not about Clinton’s total lack of character and
honesty. For the Republicans, it will now be all about Democrat D.A. Ronnie
Earle and his vendetta against poor Tommy. Right.
It’s worth, I think, recalling the political atmosphere
before September 11th — if that’s possible. I first started covering
the Bush campaign in the Summer of 1999 when Dubya blew a bundle to win the
non-binding beauty contest known as the Iowa Republican Straw Poll.
He was contending with Buchanan,
Forbes and Keyes on his right. McCain to his left and contesting the
Republican center with Lamar and Liddy. Bush had a moderate pitch back then. Moderate in scope and in tone. He
was all about being simple, uncomplicated. About pulling back from the military
interventionism of the Clinton era (Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo) and not
enmeshing the U.S. in hopeless “nation-building.”
What Bush did push, what were his biggest applause lines,
was his vow to “restore honor, dignity, and integrity to the White House.” He’d say those words, jutting his jaw a tad, and the Republican crowds
would go wild. The coding here was hardly subtle; the immediate subtext was if
I come to power, I’m not going to change things radically but I’m gonna get rid
of the stench of Clinton and all those corrupt Democrats.
Indeed, re-reading
the history of the 2000 campaign, Bush’s vow to be Mr. Clean is probably the
key issue that defeated Al Gore.
Looks like GW fibbed on both accounts. The
changes have been radical. And if Republicans want to celebrate that, I suppose
that’s fair. But let’s be honest about the second half of the old Bush formula.
The cronyism and corruption of this crew has begun to stink to high heaven. Not
just the no-bid sweetheart contracting. Not just the fiasco provoked by such
incompetents as “Brownie.” But throw in the SEC investigation of Dr. Frist. And the triple indictment of The Ham Sandwich. I could go on,
but it would take all night to list all the hogs trying to squeeze under the
gate.
How many honest Republicans, with genuine integrity, will now step forward
to shun these stinkers? Or is it just about partisanship?
P.S. Omigod, I must be dreaming. Just found out that over at the offshore betting site bodog.com you can wager real cash money on whether or not DeLay gets convicted. Is this a great world or not? You can make money and watch the Ham Sandwich get sliced? By the way: DeLay’s ultimate conviction was already paying 6 to 5 before today’s new indictments. By this time tommorrow he’s gonna be a favorite. Get your bets in quick. Non va plus!
October 3rd, 2005 at 8:19 pm
When I see those pix of DeLay, it’s almost enough to make me question the theory of evolution.
Also, picking a nit, the Somalia intervention wasn’t Clinton’s but W’s dad. Clinton inherited it.
October 3rd, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Clinton’s lying about a blow job, even if it took place in sex harassment court case, is not comparable to Bush’s lying to start a war, to help drug companies boost profits at the government’s expense, to protect energy companies from environmental regulations and to protect his “brain trust” from the legal and political consequences of outing Valerie Plame.
What are the motives of people who present these lying incidents completely outside of their historical, moral and political contexts in an attempt to blur those rather large distinctions?
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Bunkerbuster – You Clintonoids MUST stop defending the guy, you only open up the flood gates for the same kind of rationalization by Delays fans.
I can’t wait to read this board a day from now. All of the excuses by Republicans. “innocent until guilty, he can get charged but conviction will be impossible, etc…”
Bring it on. Bring on the fun.
October 3rd, 2005 at 10:32 pm
BB: What Bill Clinton lied about is indeed not comparable to some of the things Bush lied about. I would think that is obvious.
But AT THE TIME Clinton got caught fucking a little girl (under color of authority by the way) that was not the debate. What a spectacle! Feminists (Democratic Party feminists) and PC Liberals of every stripe defending, as you did just now, a most powerful man lying in sworn testimony as a defendant in a sex harrassment case. Would that have been your position if Clinton had been a Christian Conservative? Like, who gives a fuck? It’s just a sex harrassment case. Everybody lies. Who gives a shit if he’s lying, even if this is the only legal recourse women have when they’re being abused???
Give me a fucking break. Democrats would have BEEN hysterical if Clinton had been a Republican. And the same NOW feminists who were politicalll fellating Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal would have been screaming — if he were a Republican– that his lying under those circumstances was some sort of “assault against all women.” LOL! Out would have rolled Reverend Jackson to piously ask this abuser of women to step down. As it was, if you care to remember, on the very same day Clinton intiated Operation Desert Fox (i.e. the unprovoked, unilateral mass bombing of Iraq), the Reverend and a gaggle of other dopey liberals indeed came out to walk in a prayer circle in Washington — to defend Bill Clinton! What a disgusting, nauseating and revealing sight!
Of course, the ultimate betrayal Clinton committed was not or Hillary, but of the 100 million saps who voted for him.
Here they were — fighting a Republican Right that precisely was using moral and family values as a bludgeon to gain power– and that douchebag of a President couldnt exercise enough disicpline, for the common good of the country, to keep his pecker in his pants. Some guy!
Everytime you gag looking at Bush, remember how he got there. You can thank the Dems who didnt have the integrity to force this guy to resign in 1998 as soon as his stomach-turning grand jury testimony became public. If had stepped down, admitting his betrayal of his own constituencies, and let Gore succeed him, you’d have never heard of GW BUsh after Nov 4 2000.
Now you can only claim your liar is a little better than theirs. Pathetic, man.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:32 pm
Yeah I don’t get the obsession with Clinton. Despite his rhetoric he was exceptionally conservative, at times manuevering to the right of Nixon. He sold out labor with NAFTA, he took a dive on legitimating gay service in the military, he fumbled health care because he was taking care of his industry pals, he ignored the poor and fed the bottom most safety net to the Republicans, he finally did the right thing in Kosovo, but then could only be persuaded to bomb them for a month rather than actually end the genocide when it was happening, he was fully aware of what was happening in Rwanda and let it go on, he expanded the Federal death penalty. In all these cases we had to listen to his obsequious pouting-lip rhetoric falsely claiming he was doing the opposite of what he was actually doing–what has come to be known as triangulation, and which some people call lying. The guy was brilliant at politcs, it just would have been nice if he had brought a few principles along for the ride.
Let’s face it, he was the architect of the eclipse of the Democratic party. In pursuit of his personal successes he eviscerated the base of the Democratic party so that it’s core issue of economic fairness can’t even be on the table any longer. We finally have in reality Gore Vidal’s quip that there are only two wings of the business party. Clinton’s personal success and survival is all that mattered to him. We got some more national parks and Maya Angelou reading poetry. In the mean time the Democratic base got outsourced and downsized, and sold out to DLC. It would have been better for the Democrats if Bush Sr. had been re-elected. At least the knife wouldn’t have come in the back.
Let’s forget this guy. Sadly though, Hilary is cut from precisely the same cloth, and if she is elected President you should just expect more of the same. When are we going to get a party with some vertebrates? And this defending Clinton business is just partisan to me. Either their are standards or there are not. He deserves criticism for his actions public and personal. DeLay is a venal criminal; that doesn’t mean Clinton isn’t.
October 3rd, 2005 at 11:39 pm
That’s a four-bagger Dan O!
October 4th, 2005 at 12:05 am
Marc’s recalcitrant, if superficial, dualism here isn’t helpful. One can condemn Clinton’s lies without suggesting they are in the same league with Bush’s. Pointing out distinctions between the two is not the same as apologizing for Clinton.
More important, Marc’s notion that Bush won because Clinton was livin’ libido loco is at odds with a few facts: firstly, Clinton’s popularity ROSE after the Lewinsky scandal and impeachment. I don’t think I’m going out on a limb here to suggest that that was because the America public by and large forgave Clinton for the BJ and appreciated his results on issues that actually affected their lives.
Secondly, until the final days of the 2000 campaign (when it was too late) Al Gore declined to associate himself with Clinton. He declined Clinton’s offers to campaign for him and only rarely even mentioned Bill Clinton’s name in stump speeches. Gore did this because he too was spun up by scandalized journalists and others who were understandably disappointed by Clinton’s inability to check his sex drive or to accept the consequences for it in a straightforward way. I’m not sure, but I believe Gore has admitted it was a mistake not to have Clinton fully on board for the campaign. Nonetheless, it’s arguable that Gore, not Clinton, is responsible for Gore’s loss to George W. Bush, the weakest candidate the GOP has run in our lifetime.
Marc writes: “ Would that have been your position if Clinton had been a Christian Conservative?”
Of course not, the Jimmy Swaggerts and Jim Bakkers of America go around preaching that people who have sex outside marriage may burn in hell. So when they are caught with their dicks in an intern’s mouth, the moral and political contexts are different from the Clinton scenario.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:20 am
BB: Ur hopeless, pal. Clinton gained popularity among DEMOCRATS after his debacle. His general unfavorability ratings soared after ’98.
You also conveniently forget that stumble-bum Clinton approved a whole packet of morality-based legislation. Can we start with his law that linked welfare payments (what were left of them after he abolished AFDC in ’96) to unmarried women became linked to verifying they were not living with a man? And you don’t recall that the reason Clinton was forced to answer all those “witch hunt” sex based questions in the Paula Jones case because of a law HE insisted on that opened up the sexual history of sex harrassment defendants.
You have GOT to be kidding when u assert that Clinton didnt use every pro-religious tact in the book in which to clothe his threadbare politics.
Get a grip BB. I thought you were some sort of fire-breathing radical. But now ur sounding like one more of the soft-headed saps who nosed Lewinsky out of the way to kiss Clinton’s ass. Another glass of Klinton Kool-Aid to wash away the taste?
October 4th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Let’s try a few facts:
1. Clinton did not abolish AFDC, he merely reformed it.
2. The prohibition against live-in men to welfare recipients isn’t “morality” based legislation. It’s an attempt to prevent abuses by men, not to put the government in the business of regulating sex.
3. Neither is a law that mandates “opening up” the history of sex harrassment defendents “morality” based. That is, rather, an issue of workplace safety, not sexual morality. What are Marc’s motives in trying to describe these as “a whole packed of morality-based legislation?”
October 4th, 2005 at 12:31 am
Marc writes: “You have GOT to be kidding when u assert that Clinton didnt use every pro-religious tact in the book in which to clothe his threadbare politics.”
Hmmm. don’t see where anyone has made that assertion. Maybe Marc got that from the same place he found the “whole packet of morality-based legislation,” the master stash of Iraqi WMDs and the account of the abolishment of AFDC.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:34 am
BB: u tire me with ur insistent fantasies. But let’s be clear about one FACT. One the eve of the 1996 Democratic Convention, Bill Clinton signed the “welfare reform” bill that ABOLISHED AFDC. It completely swept away the FEDERAL program established during the New Deal, implementing a fully Republican legislative measure. The abolition of AFDC turned federal welfare funds into BLOCK grants to the states… that meant (and means) that each state was given a fixed amount of money, period, and if it wasnt enough to cover everyone in need, well, then tough titty. You also might remember that the same Clinton bill imposed punitive and completely unrealistic and unfunded welfare-to-work mandates that were a long-time favorite of the Right.
As Yogi Berra said, you can look it up. But be careful, as the facts might get in ur way.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:38 am
BB:
I’m gonna jump in with a fact, “The bill replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with block grants to the states, or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). People were required to find employment as quickly as possible or be placed in unpaid jobs for 20 hours per week in order to receive assistance (Dollars and Sense, 1/99). If families did not comply with the welfare rules, they would lose all or part of their assistance.” This refers to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act that Clinton went with in 1996.
I think you’re on loose ground trying to defend Clinton’s record.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:44 am
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program was created by the Welfare Reform Law of 1996 and replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).
Like I said, Clinton reformed AFDC. If you want to claim he abolished it, you’re wasting your time lost in a meaningless semantic debate. The facts are clear: families with dependent children are still eligible for aid and the program has been reformed and renamed, not eliminated.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:52 am
Thanks for the assist Dan O. I actually was out getting paid to accurately report this stuff on Clinton (rather than making up shit) but frankly I now find it far too wearisome to start looking up the links. SO again, thanks.
I love BB’s fulminations, I ough to be paying him for so much amusement. It feeds right into my curiousity about a new breed of Internet Radical… it’s an odd fusion of militant-sounding radicalism and total Democratic hackery. They pose as revolutionaries but in the end are toadies for the Corporate Democrats. Lovely!
I also love the insinuations about my “motivation” along with such gloriously constructed innuendo: criticizing clinton = apologizing for bush= pretending there really were wmd’s! Fantastic. Straight out of the Stalin School of Falsification: “Isn’t it true, Comrade Trotsky, that even as you were building the Red Army and leading the Bolshevik troops against the White Armies you were, in reality, an agent of the Kaiser’s regime?” LOL.
I confess BB! I Confess! I criticize Clinton because I secretly want to bolster Bush. You got me, you genius! Now go to bed, wouldya?
October 4th, 2005 at 12:56 am
BB:
I think you’re missing the point, and it seems you’re willfully missing it. It’s not the same, it’s not just a name, and it’s not reform, it’s the abandonment of safety net support that has been expanding in limited form since the New Deal. The new bill is a hard cutoff, something not seen since before 1939 when there was no Federal aid of this kind to the poor. In short, Clinton dismantled a key part of the New Deal reforms designed to help the poor and the destitute. If that’s reform you can keep it, but I suspect you are unpersuadable as important and telling facts turn into “semantics,” which they decidedly are not.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:56 am
Oh No.. just when I thought I could go to bed, BB draws me back in. Hey, BB, did u hear the man? CLinton reformed AFDC by replacing with Block Grants. Apparently you dont know what they are. They mean that some families that used to get welfare didnt get it anymore. DId you hear that part about work rules? It meant that some families who used to get welfare didnt get it anymore because pinhead Clinton imposed work rules that could not be achieved. I wrote a long piece for the Village Voice about these folks getting churned out of the system by your Hero Clinton. Funny thing, those welfare moms I met in Milwaukee who had been left destitute by this nifty little reform didnt quite agree with your willfully ignorant view of Big Bill.
May I suggest you READ about stuff before mouthing off?
October 4th, 2005 at 1:10 am
Like I said, Clinton reformed welfare, he didn’t abolish it. It still exists. Poor families still get assistance paid for out of the federal budget.
It is certainly worthwhile to discuss whether the reforms produced the desired outcome of reduced welfare dependence and continued help to families that really need it, but I don’t think it’s helpful to assume that any change, even a drastic one, is necessarily bad.
To be honest, I don’t know whether the reforms were good for the country and the economy. If Marc and Dan O think they were bad or wrong, perhaps they’ll see fit to explain how and why.
But I do know that describing the reforms as the “abolishment” of AFDC is misleading.
As for Marc’s fevered characterizations of my political stances: He could make it a lot easier on himself by refraining from them. They don’t become him at all.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:12 am
クリントンã¡ã‚ƒã‚“ã€ä½•å‡¦ã«å±…ã‚‹ã®?　
　　　　　　　　　　　　　,､-”’`'´￣ ｀フｰ- ､
　　　　　 　 　 　 　 ï¼ã€€ã€€ 　 　 　 　 　 　 ï¼¼
　　　　　　　　　　/ ï¼ âˆ ä¸‰ï¾ãƒ¬– ､　　　 　 ヽ
　　　　　　　　　/ /　//─”’´￣￣｀ヽ　　　　　 ﾞi
　　　　　　　　/ /　 //　　　　　　　　ﾞiヽ　　ヽ　 |
　　　　　　　 ,’ /　 //　　　　　　　　　 | ヽ　　’,　|
　　　　　　　 | |　 / l,､､,,_　　　-—”￣｀ﾞi. |　　 | |
　　　　　　　 | |　/ ﾉ,.t-､　　　　’Tｯ’T゠ヽ|ﾚâ€ï½¤| |
　　　　　　　 ﾞi |/ ,ｨ`’ _L.,!　　　　` â”´’　　ﾘâ€ï½¤ } |
　　　　　　　　.!///ﾞ!　　 　 ,　　 　 　 　 ノ__ï¼ .!
　　　　　　　　 |/ |　’,　　　 ﾞ　　　　　 　 /　 |　 |
　　　　　 　 　 |!　|　 ＼　　　ﾟ　　 　 　 /　　|　 .!
　　　　　 　 　 {　 |　 | | ﾞヽ､　　　 ï¼ã€€ |　 　|　　|
　　　　　　　　 ﾞ､　’,　| | 　 | ï½€l’”´　　　 ﾞ､|　 |i 　 |
　　　　　　　　　ヽ ヽ | | 　 レ’′　　　 　 ï¼¼ ||　/
　　　　 　 　 　 ï¼ãƒ½ ï¼¼!　 |　￣ ï½€`　　　r’´ ｀￣｀`ヽ
　　　　　　　　/　　 ヽ　ヽ ﾉ　　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 　 ヽ
　　　　　　　 |　　　　 〉　V　　　　　　　　　　　 　 |　　 |
　　　　　　　 |　　　 /　　/　　 　 　 ＼　　　　　　 ヽ､　|
　　　　　　　 |　 　 / /　/|　　　　　　　ヽ　　　　　　　＼
　　　　　　　 .! 　 /　{　ヽ|　　　 …　　 　 ﾞ､　　　　　　　　ヽ
　　　　　　　　|　 {　 ﾞi 　 ヽ　　::r.;:.　　 　 l　　　　　　　　 ::_)
　　　　　　　　.!　 ＼　ﾄ､　|　　 ｀ﾞ” 　 　 /　　　　　　　 　 /
　　　　　　　　 |　 　 ト| | ∧　　　　　　 /　　 　 　 　 　 ï¼
　 　 　 　 　 　 |　　/ / /|| ﾞヽ､ __ ,. -’”　　　 ` ーr┬ ‘′
　　　　　　　 　 |　/ /　| ヽã€ã€€ã€€ã€€ã€€ 　 　 　 　 　 | /
October 4th, 2005 at 1:25 am
天声人語 ã¯ã€€ãŠã‚ã§ãŸã„ã‚„ã¤ã ï¼ï¼
October 4th, 2005 at 2:24 am
Marc and David –
I think you do Clinton a disservice. While certainly not without flaws or considerable baggage, and unable to keep his appetites under control, Clinton DOES IMHO deserve credit for understanding that his job as both Party Leader and President was to keep public safety under control and a booming economy going. Yes NAFTA was a disgrace, Rwanda and Kosovo also, and let’s not forget his failure to act against bin Laden or his run-away strategy in Mogadishu that encouraged bin Laden to attack. However Clinton’s domestic genius was to realize that a booming economy and tight labor market was a better option than permanent welfare for poor people. Many poor people had better lives cause they moved out of poverty through Clinton’s economic policies. His failure as a husband and father must be measured against this massive and remarkable peace-time labor market expansion. I profoundly disagree with Clinton as eviscerating the Democratic Party, he IMHO revitalized it with the emphasis for the first time on economic growth in wages. Clinton believed as I believe that the best welfare program is a well-paying job and made that happen. I’m proud to have voted for him twice.
[I cannot disagree Marc with your comments about the political reaction to Clinton's sexual misconduct, however I disagree completely with Desert Fox which was IMHO justified by Saddam's violation of the cease-fire agreement and kicking the WMD inspectors out after he'd been caught concealing the extent of his Nuke, Missile, and biochemical programs. Clinton as usual did the absolute min in response to foreign threats and kicked the problem down the road. See bin Laden, North Korea, Iran, etc]
I agree with the political cost of Clinton’s scandals, but will point out that though Bush’s Administration has been marked by cronyism, so far no one has been indicted, which is not the case for Clinton’s Admin. Tom DeLay and Bill Frist are well, LEGISLATIVE leaders. Bush HAS mostly kept a clean Admin, no Whitewater or Cattle Futures or Web Hubbell problems. No Ron Brown problems, etc. Guys like Kerik are quickly booted from nominations. I’d further agree that BB is correct, Gore ran against the weakest GOP candidate in generations and lost due to being, well Al Gore.
You’re also ignoring the Ronnie Earle problem. He’s known to indict political enemies (Bob Bullock against ally Ann Richards, rival Jim Mattox, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson). His record in those cases: all dismissed or losses. In addition, he’s making a movie about his attempt to convict DeLay, which raises serious questions about fairness and publicity seeking. He’s also made political statements about the case to political fundraising meetings of Texas Democrats; which also raises serious questions. Even that Right-Wing Rag the WaPo had serious concerns about Earle’s pursuit of the case in light of his conduct. Earle should recuse himself but won’t.
NY State’s AG Eliot Spitzer on the market timing issue (cases dropped for firms contributions to the AG’s cause) and many other cases shows the danger, in that the DA can be seen as a political extortionist or publicity hound if pursuit of the cameras goes too far.
NYT Sunday Magazine says “Spitzerism” is what’s needed for Dems (IMHO it’s a disaster):
“Attorneys general are, by definition, law enforcers. But Spitzer expands this template: he casts himself not just as an enforcer of the law per se, but also as an enforcer of a broader social compact between ordinary people and large institutions like government and business.”
Social compact? That’s for politics IMHO not the law. Most Americans I’d argue would agree. That’s why you have elections. Not trials. This sounds awfully like Earle’s description of himself as “holistic” DA and his refusal btw to the anger of the local NAACP to file against the Austin PD for deaths in custody of African Americans.
The re-indictment was because the statute of limitations was about to run out (sloppy lawyering). The laws under which DeLay is indicted may or may not apply to the 2002 election in question because they were amended a year later in 2003 to make the conduct a felony. Earle has said DeLay is part of a criminal conspiracy even though each act was legal in and of itself (and Dems have done the exact same thing, raise money from corporations, donate that money into the DNC, and transfer the exact same amount from the DNC to local Texas PACs). Tellingly, Earle has NOT INDICTED the Corporations that donated to the National RNC. Nor ANYONE in the RNC. A similar lawsuit was thrown out in MN.
That to me says Earle knows he won’t win. DeLay without question did the things he is alleged to have done. If it’s a violation of the law is another thing entirely, and given that Earle has not filed on Dems who did the exact same thing nor the Companies that gave money the chances of winning in court given the irregularities are IMHO not great. That matches Earle’s record too btw.
I am not a fan of campaign finance laws the way they are structured generally (and particularly McCain-Feingold). Full disclosure rather than a Canute like attempt to keep money out seems the way to go. To me Spitzerism is dangerous when the law merely becomes a partisan tool to pursue enemies and the Party is seen abusing that law for that very purpose. Republicans paid the price for overly-politicizing the Independent Counsel and Ken Starr’s non-stop attempt to get Bill Clinton (that’s what Spitzerism is IMHO). Clinton lost his law license under his perjury plea, but not his office and that sounds about right to me. Nancy Pelosi was fined for the same behavior as DeLay, and so likely will be with Harry Reid.
Don’t forget that Ronnie Earle indicted Texas AG Mattox under campaign finance violations and saw Mattox acquitted on all charges. He dropped the charges against Hutchinson right before trial. That hardly inspires confidence.
I believe Rahm Emmanuel’s prescription for universal College and health insurance is the right way to go and winning politics. Not this circus but that’s just me. Sorry for the length of the post but Bill Clinton IMHO deserves a defense. On balance a good though not great President.
October 4th, 2005 at 3:37 am
Most JR’s bill of goods on Clinton is bogus–a collection of exaggerations, misrepresentations and outright fabrications–but the part that is most in need of easy debunking is: “and let’s not forget his failure to act against bin Laden”
Clinton captured, tried, convicted and imprisoned those responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing. Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Whil Khan Amin Shah are still behind bars and have confessed to involvement in plots to blow up 12 airliners, an attack directly thwarted by the Clinton team.
Clinton tripled the FBI’s counterterrorism budget and doubled counterterror funding overall. The administration sponsored a series of simulations to see how local, state and federal officials should coordinate responses to a terror attack. (I don’t know, but I have a feeling his college buddy’s roommates were not in charge.)
In 1998, Clinton ordered tomahawk missile attacks in Sudan and Afghanistan after Al Qaeda attacks in Kenya and Tanzania. I disagreed with those attacks and still do, and history shows they failed to deter further attacks and, most likely, only served as good PR for Al Qaeda in the region and elsewhere. But the fact is, Clinton did respond to the attacks. After them, he also issued presidential authorization for Osama bin Laden’s assassination. If JR wants to argue that Clinton should have ordered an invasion of Iraq in response to AQ’s attacks, he’s free to do that, but he can’t credibly say Clinton did “nothing.”
As for the claptrap on welfare: indeed, the devil’s in the details. I think we can all agree that the government serves its citizens by helping people who can’t help themselves. The consensus supporting that is broad and deep, though has been eroding in recent decades. Surely, the most interesting discussion is how to provide that support most efficiently and with the minimum of unintended consequences like dependency and disincentive to work.
Maybe the Clinton/GOP welfare reform did not achieve those goals, but I don’t think it makes me a mindless Clinton-worshipper to say that his track record on other issues convinces me that it was probably the best doable deal at the time and was better than doing nothing about welfare…
October 4th, 2005 at 4:26 am
bb, you don’t need to respond to Rockford with a serious post. It’s just not worth it.
Marc, this is probably the first time in about a month that I can say this but I agree with every word of your initial post, as well as your replies to bb.
Especially that third post in the comments section.
Clinton has become an icon for a whole lot of people who really should know better.
And bb, the draconian anti-terrorism legislation that Clinton passed in the wake of OKC helped pave the way for the Patriot Act and Ashcroft’s reign. He also signed into law more executive orders than any other president in history (I think, more than any two presidents combined, actually). As far as taking us down the road to a police state, eviscerating the constitution and the bill of rights, constructing more prisons (while at the same time privatizing many already existing prisons) Clinton was **the worst president ever** … until Dubya came along.
Before you come to Clinton’s defense every time someone voices any uncomfortable truths about him and his legacy, you should really read James Bovard’s “Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton-Gore Years”.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/031224052X/
I also recommend Hitch’s “No One Left To Lie To”, which Marc has conveniently placed an Amazon link to in the margins of his blog.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:18 am
It’s funny…DeLay is such a transparently sleazy, politically rabid, unloved – but ultimately boring – little shit that the guy who’s been out of office for nearly five years is still a more compelling figure to argue over.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:12 am
With regards to DeLay, maybe now that he’s out of work he finally will make aliyah.
http://maxblumenthal.blogspot.com/2005/09/maybe-tom-delay-should-make-aliyah.html
October 4th, 2005 at 7:32 am
If it were not for the FECkless gov’t agency we pay for(what’s new, eh) to enforce campaign law, then it would not be necessary for states to do it for FEC. We know it is politics that keeps the FEC impotent. Niether side wants their campaign financing looked at, so FEC is just a fake store front.
I don’t care if this indictment is partisan or not. If it takes partisan political fighting to point out and prosecute each others law breaking, and other shady dealings, then what is wrong with that from the people’s point of view??
Nothing. So let’s stop being partisan ourselves and cheer along this indictment, or at least stop attacking the messenger. Let’s not forget the Texas DA didn’t indict Delay, a Texas Grand Jury made of ordinary people like you and I, did.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:33 am
It’s important to consider the political and historical context of the Clinton presidency. Perhaps those who say he was a terrible president are not taking into account how little political and financial capital he had to work with relative to that of his opponents.
Why can’t Clinton’s critics judge his failures and his achievements as a whole, rather than simply pointing to the weak points and condemning his presidency on that basis alone? At the simplest level, the U.S. started and was involved in no major wars and the economy boomed. You can gripe all you want, but those two facts are unassailable and highly relevant.
Secondly, I voted for Jerry Brown in the primary and was never thrilled with Bill Clinton. So please, do chastise me if I “defend” Clinton as any kind of messaiah.
It seems to me that what Marc and his ilk are waiting for is the second coming of Christ, not a politician who will wheedle, cajole and do what it takes to beat back the onslaught of Idiot America that spawned George W. Bush.
Here’s a clue: look in all Marc’s posts, and columns, for that matter, for commentary about politicians or ideas he supports. You’ll find precious little, if any. Apparently, his view is that showing support for and/or defending the good guys isn’t worth his time. Instead, we get an endless whinge and juvenile ad hominem ad nauseum about all those who fall short of the greater glory. A real pity, that.
But, so far, my comments about Clinton have been aimed at correcting what I think are misleading statements in others’ comments about him: such as Marc’s contention that Clinton abolished AFDC and Jim R’s claim that Clinton “did nothing” after Al Qaeda attacks. Does that make me a Clintonista?
October 4th, 2005 at 8:59 am
I don’t know why I bother, I’m probably a glutton for punishment but here goes. To even minimally equate the Clinton “Scandals” with the Bush corruption extraviganza is so ridiculous that it can only come from someone who has an almost pathological hatred of the 42nd president. Oh wait, he does! Marc still refuses to take any responsibility for Nader and the “Children’s Crusade” that got us into this fine mess by raising googooism to a high art.
Restore Honor and Integrity to the White House. HA HA HA HA
While we’re blastinfg Clinton for the Welfare Bill let us consider some facts:
1. The poverty rate declined from 15.6 percent to 11.3 percent the lowest since the sixties
2. Ovewr two million children raised out of poverty
3. The lowest Minority unemployment rate and the highes minority home ownership rate in history.
And the CHIPS program and so much more plus the production of a budget surplus which freed money for more efforts. And all this with a hostile GOP_ congree for six of his eight years in office. Clinton wasn’t Superman but he was damn good and has been replaced by one of the worst Presidents in our history. Thanks Marc!
October 4th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Let’s not forget that the Paula Jones case was politically hatched and that, if we learned anything from the Clinton experience, Presidents should not be subjected to private law suits based on years-old incidents between persons while they are holding office. Also, frankly, Clinton’s lie in this context may have been technically perjurous, but it was the kind of perjury – outside of the facts of the case itself, and in response to very personal “dirt” dug up solely to destroy his reputation and his family – that I find forgiveable. I would never argue that he handled himself well, but you’ve got to be pretty goddam self-righteous not to cut him some slack in the context he, by his own idiotic transgressions with Lewinsky admittedly, found himself in. The people who pushed the Clinton scandals relentlessly – Coulter, American Spectator, the Pittsburgh newspaper mogul, etc. – are people with an essentially fascist sensibility and to give them aid and comfort in their project out of some kind of belief in being “even-handed” would have been idiocy. The people on the left who bought into this were generally folks, like Hitchens, who had a militantly Naderite, Clinton-hating sensibility to begin with. I, like Marc, put a lot of the blame for Bush on Clinton’s personal failings, but at the time the “censure him and move on” argument was the best response IMHO. I haven’t read the Hitchens book, because frankly by it’s very title – which I find offensive – it sounds like a hit piece. I respect AAA’s reading tips, so maybe it’s not just the usual Hitchens posturing (I find the guy to be devoid of any pragmatic politics, as opposed to moralizing.) I read Conosan’s book and was appalled by the vultures and Starr’s lack of professinal ethics, as well as the amount of money poured in privately to foster what was purely politics of personal destruction.
October 4th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
The idea that Nader got us into any sort of “mess” is absolutely preposterous. Do you think that only candidates anointed by the nation Democrats or Republicans should be allowed? Do the candidates for those two parties automatically deserve to carve up 100% of the vote?
October 4th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
Delay’s crimes – a natural outgrowth of the K-Street project – truly affront the democratic process. Clinton, Frist, and Newt perpetrated petty crimes that attend those with great power, ego, and the machavelian impulses necessary to achieve high office. They’re a bunch of bastards who deserve what they got. But you can’t compare the magnitude of their crimes to Delay’s efforts to institutionally trash our democracy. (Crooks like Cunningham are simply low level guys in the Delay mafia and even they deserve far worse than Frist, Newt, Clinton et al.)
We like to take down the other side’s elected representatives with scandals and investigations. It’s a dirty proclivity and one that’s hard to kick while our leaders are so corrupt. We should take time to acknowledge that while the whole house needs cleaning, there should be a special kind of bipartisan voter wrath reserved for those who find new ways to help lobbyists thwart democracy. Ugh.
October 4th, 2005 at 1:45 pm
BB — Clinton’s missteps and mistakes with bin Laden are serious, and deserve criticism. However, they can be understood in context. No one seriously viewed terrorism as a threat to the US and bipartisan policy since Nixon had been to ignore the threat and use “law enforcement” as a model for dealing with it, which clearly did not work. Clinton did not do anything different than Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, or Bush 1. Nor was their strong domestic support in either Party for action to decisively and finally deal with the problem.
In the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing by Al Qaeda Clinton’s Ambassador prevented the FBI from pressing the Saudis for rights to question suspects to find links between the Egyptian Islamic Jihad 1993 WTC bombers and the Al Qaeda group, which we now know to exist (because EIJ joined Al Qaeda). Paul O’Neil who led the 1993 WTC investigation for the FBI was so frustrated by Clinton’s refusal to stop his Ambassador in Yemen from frankly obstructing the Cole bombing investigation that he resigned to take a job with the Port Authority where he tragically was murdered on 9/11. Clinton refused an offer of bin Laden by the Sudanese because politically he did not want to try bin Laden and Janet Reno was opposed to the deal. Clinton refused as detailed by Scheuer and Clark to kill bin Laden on several occasions for fear of: a. killing a Gulf prince who was visiting bin Laden; b. damaging a mosque and upsetting Muslims; c. fear of killing innocent civilians.
Clinton’s impotent (there is no other word for it) missile attacks in Sudan, Afghanistan and Iraq gave pretty much positive proof that the US was a “paper tiger” as bin Laden put it and could be attacked with near impunity. That was a very dangerous course of action to take. I understand in the context of the times when both Parties wanted only to go back to sleep after the long Cold War struggle. But there it is. Iraq? Saddam clearly was not going to moderate his hostility towards us and was our enemy, sheltering 1993 WTC bomber (and still at large fugitive) Abdul Rahman Yassin along with Abu Nidal and various other terrorist nasties who murdered Americans besides his territorial ambitions which put him in direct conflict with us. Clinton blinked and kicked the problem down the road which made us look weak and an easy target.
Hindsight is 20-20, politically there was no appetite for taking measures on either side of the aisle to deal once and for all with bin Laden before he grew into the world-wide threat he is today or taking painful and costly steps to stop Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea’s, get rid of Saddam, and remove the House of Saud. However, that failure of personal leadership and vision should be something Clinton is judged by just as Bush must also be judged by the same standard (and also found lacking).
I myself supported Clinton’s policies and have come to the conclusion I was profoundly wrong. But I understand the environment of the times.
It’s worth noting that Bush himself did nothing to respond to the Cole. Only 9/11 shattered the political consensus developed over thirty years. On balance I believe Clinton while not morally pure was a far better President than Jerry Brown would have been, in that he kept the economy going which helped everyone through skillful politics and realistic leadership. Hillary was responsible for the death of Healthcare, because she’s a bad politician. But that was the price for Bill’s philandering. Everyone knew he fooled around a lot but no one really cared. The 92 elections were about economics and Clinton understood that.
The Central Difference between Bush and Clinton domestically is that Clinton and Bush both had pandering appointments (Reno, Powell) who were not very good at their jobs or outright disasters, and huge amounts of cronyism, but Clinton’s appointments though corrupt were often pretty competent.
Bush’s appointments are so far not corrupt, but pretty incompetent. Jack Snow vs. Bob Rudin? What the heck does the former head of CSX know about Treasury? Bush has not been linked to shady land deals, corrupt billing practices, or phony cattle futures profits, nor has his appointees been accused of the myriad shady financial dealings ala Charlie Trie and the Chinese PLA, Johnny Huang, etc. Life is a series of trade-offs and on balance Clinton was a better President than either Bush even though his Admin was light years more corrupt.
Richard — it was not Ralph Nader but gun control that cost Gore the Presidency. Even Gore admits it privately.
Clinton was on balance a good president, the last gasp of the FDR Party as we see Dems transformed into a sad collection of largely irrelevant social causes. I doubt we’ll see his like again, sadly.
Reg — the same lack of ethics on Starr’s account which eroded all support for the Prosecutions of Clinton are going to come up with DeLay. We still in this country don’t have bills of attainder making people “illegal” and Earle will get the same backlash as Starr. Earle is if anything WORSE than Starr. Making a movie about DeLay’s prosecution? That alone is likely to get all charges dropped in a court of law.
October 4th, 2005 at 2:28 pm
ãŠã„ã€ãƒãƒ³ã‚«ãƒ¼ãƒã‚¹ãŸãƒ¼ã€ãŠå‰ã¿ãŸã„糞虫野郎ã‹ã‚‰ã€ŒãŠã‚ã ã„ã‚„ã¤ã€ã£ã¦å‘¼ã°ã•ã›ãªã„ãž!æ»ã«ãªã•ã„よ!
October 4th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
And BTW:
“juvenile ad hominem ad nauseum”
it’s ad nauseAm, you pretentious ignoramus ウンコ垂れ!
October 4th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
“Do you think that only candidates anointed by the nation Democrats or Republicans should be allowed?”
What is “allowed” and what a sensible liberal does in the context of electoral politics at the Presidential level, obviously, are two quite different issues. Free speech is “allowed”, but that doesn’t mean that an idiot like Bill Bennett, for example, can’t use their fundamental right unwisely.
Of course Nader made an opportunistic, remarkably poor political decision that cost Gore the election. Not really a debatable issue. No more debatable than the fact that Clinton made a remarkably careless and selfish personal decision that cost the Dems the 2000 election, or that Gore – already faced with his own political limitations, a bad deal handed him by Clinton and Nader’s opportunism – made some remarkably poor tactical decisions that probably cost the Dems the 2000 election. Clinton created a tougher electoral terrain than need be, Nader exploited it carelessly and Gore blew some opportunities. Clinton and Nader could have definitely changed the outcome of the election had they shown better, less narcissitic judgement and Gore probably could had he more guts, charisma or skill.
October 4th, 2005 at 2:57 pm
Let’s try “…had they shown better, less narcissistic judgement and Gore probably could have, had he more guts, charisma or skill.”
October 4th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
Mavis Beacon is right. De Lay’s actions are destroying whatever small democracy we have left. The Washington Post noted Monday that the White House and Congress, under the leadership of the now twice-indicted Tom DeLay, blurred “the line between lawmakers and lobbyists so that lobbyists are now considered partners of politicians and not merely pleaders — especially if they once worked for Republicans on Capitol Hill. Lawmakers-turned-corporate lobbyists… remain among the most influential figures on Capitol Hill — often more involved than lawmakers in writing policy and plotting political strategy.”
The way it goes is lobbyists give corporate money to Delay’s group and then get to write the legislation.
Can anything be more corrupt than that?
Also $2 million of corporate money was money laundered by DeLay’s national Republican group & then sent back to Texas funding candidates for their state legislature against state law.
By the way, Bush relied on DeLay to
get his legislation passed, so
even if Bush isn’t directy involved
with DeLay’s corruption, Bush
sure relies on and depends on this
corruption daily.
My question, is Bush the most corrupt president ever? Is Bush more corrupt than Harding who was really really corrupt? I think Bush is like
Harding who didn’t directly take
money but Harding appointed his political cronies who took money from people all the time. I mean why
is that total incompenent Michael
Brown still on the government payroll as a consultant to FEMA. Brown couldn’t conslut his way out of a paper bag
October 4th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Speaking of the erosion of Democracy, is it just me, or does this AP article strike anyone as….uh….a tad uneasy-making?
BUSH CONSIDERS MILITARY ROLE IN FLU FIGHT
By JENNIFER LOVEN
The Associated Press
Tuesday, October 4, 2005; 7:38 PM
WASHINGTON — President Bush, stirring debate on the worrisome possibility of a bird flu pandemic, suggested dispatching American troops to enforce quarantines in any areas with outbreaks of the killer virus.
Bush asserted aggressive action could be needed to prevent a potentially crippling U.S. outbreak of a bird flu strain that is sweeping through Asian poultry and causing experts to fear it could become the next deadly pandemic. Citing concern that state and local authorities might be unable to contain and deal with such an outbreak, Bush asked Congress to give him the authority to call in the military….
….Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness, called the president’s suggestion an “extraordinarily draconian measure” that would be unnecessary if the nation had built the capability for rapid vaccine production, ensured a large supply of anti-virals like Tamiflu, and not allowed the degradation of the public health system.
“The translation of this is martial law in the United States,” Redlener said…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400663.html
*****************
Uh, well, yeah. That’d be martial law, alright.
In the hands of George W. Bush.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
Well I’m back after fufilling some obligations to complete what I was saying this morning (don’t you just hate it when the real world intrudes on your rant time?)
I really couldn’t let something that Marc wrote this morning go unrebuted. So Clinton “fucked a little girl”. A little Girl? She was 21 years old Marc when she gave the blow job heard round the world. I know this culture of ours has become infantilized but since when isn’t that well within the age of consent? When is it Marc? 55? That might suit us AARP types (“kids, whats the matter with kids today?”) but I really think people ought to be responsible somewhat earlier. Please don’t tell me you’re buying Chris Hitchens” allegations. I’ll believe him when Achmed Chalibi wins the Nobel Peace Prize with Judy Miller! Somebody already pointed out that the difference with Swaggart (and Newt and Bob Livingston and so many others)is sexual hypocrisy.
As to the notion that Clinton cost Gore the election in 2000 let me just say a few things. First when you have a GOP noise machine allied with a compliant press its no wonder that some might think there was a moral stench. Except they didn’t! Look at the polls Marc! Want to bet that Bill would have easily won reelection in 2000? The so-called “Clinton Fatigue” was a product of the DC Kool Kids who never liked Bill because he was smarter than them and had a connection with the people that they didn’t. And I’m sorry but Sally Quinn writing that Clinton lowered the tone in Washington? SALLY FUCKING QUINN? Give me a break? Gore’s problemwas he was a good little boy who believed this crap and distanced himself so far from Clinton that he could not make the case that he had anything to do with a successful administration. Add to that Ralph Nader’s quixotic campaign and all the goo-goos who saw no difference. Well they sure learned didn’t they! But you know what? I’ll let you in on a little secret. For all of that there is one incontrovertable fact:
GORE WON!
He not only took the poular vote but the newspaper consortium’s Florida Recount showed he would have won that state and, therefore, the Presidency. And he would be president now. No Iraq war, No uncontrollable deficit. No Bankruptcy atrocity. No Supreme Court ready to take away your rights.
No I think it is asinine to compare the Clinton misdemeanors with the Bush Felonies. A bunch of con artists told us they would restore “Honor and Integrity” to the White House. Instead they have ushered in an era of cronyism and corruption that would have made Grant or Harding blush. With the exception of Buchanan, the worst President ever!
October 4th, 2005 at 5:21 pm
i heard somewhere, NPR?, there’s a “draft Gore” effort out there somewhere. Nice thought, but I wonder if, faced with an actual campaign, Gore would revert to his “old” goo-goo centrism template, or whether he would campaign calling Bush a liar and criminal flat out.
October 4th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
And now a few words about Tom DeLay. I really think balancing by damning the Dem’s defense of Clinton misses the point. Democrats have had bad apples in Congress go to the pokey – “Rosty” comes to mind. No party has a lock on corrupt pols – Think “Duke” Cunningham. But Tom DeLay is sui generis.
The exterminator/hammer was one of the brains behind the “K-Street Project” which is an attempt to make sure that all major lobbying groups hire and use only Republicans. The “offer you can’t refuse”? Hire someone else and watch your legislation go down the drain. When the MPAA hired a Democrat the displeasure of DeLay and company was notable. This is extortion – “That’s a nice little trade group youy’ve got, shame if something happened to it!” And its object is to create a permanant GOP majority allied to the monied interests. There is a word for that but I’ll not use that in polite company but Andrew Sullivan used it recently. You could look it up (said by Casey Stengel, not Yogi, Marc)
October 4th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
rlc – Clinton’s antics might not have inevitably cost the Dems the 2000 election, but they definitely made Gore’s job harder with certain swing voters and were the context of Gore’s (bad) decision not to have Bill actively campaign. (Not to mention choosing “Holy Joe”, a real dud of a pol, to “balance” the ticket.) Had Clinton avoided the Lewinsky boondoggle, Nader’s skimming on the left wouldn’t have had a determining negative effect in the Florida mess. And while Gore “won”, he didn’t win – so the focus that I’m seeing here is where did the liberal players fuck up, not how fucked is the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, etc. etc. Plenty of blame among “our guys” for a bizarre debacle that could have been avoided if any one of the three leading liberals involved had behaved better or smarter.
October 4th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
RLC: Stengel, Berra, at least the same team!
As to Clinton and the “little girl.” Certainly age 21 is legal. But are you denying the real world dynamcis that are the very definition of sexual harassment? When a an older boss has sex with a younger employee, in this case the President and an intern less than half his age. That may indeed be legal. But do u honestly think that fairly sums up the nature of the relationship? Surely you are kidding.
Especially once we know this man’s history of abusing his power to engage in these affairs. Remember that Gennifer Flowers was given a plum state job because she was the Guv;s paramour. Paula Jones was brought to the Guvnor by his troopers. And of course, even UN Ambassador Bill Richardson was brought in to try and give Monica a hush-job.
There is no possible defense of Clinton. Ur only weak feeble attempt is to invent a straw man— saying that his offenses are somehow being equated (by me) to Bush’s.
No. That’s not what I said. What I said is that in both cases the partisan defenders of each creep find ways to rationalize away everything. The “defense” of Clinton on this baord has only proven my point. Several times over.
P.S. Let me say in passing, if Monica had been my daughter, I would have jumped in the car, found this schmuck named Bill, and punched out his lights.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:07 pm
“if Monica had been my daughter, I would have jumped in the car, found this schmuck named Bill, and punched out his lights.”
LOL!! now we’re into sexist macho insecurity. pathetic…
October 4th, 2005 at 7:27 pm
It’s pretty obvious that Lewinsky was a canny, scheming seductress and Clinton was her target. Frankly, Marc, I think your characterization of her borders on the absurd and the primary responsibility of her father, or anyone else who cared about her, was to sit her down and try to have a long talk with her about inappropriate behavior with married men. Clinton isn’t innocent in this scenario, but I think you have a remarkably unbalanced view of the power relationship here. There is absolutely no evidence that Clinton harrassed or coerced Lewinsky and considerable evidence that she had him in her sights. Twenty-one year old “girls” can wield considerable power over weak-willed, narcissistic middle-aged men.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Marc,Monica was a serial crotch-hunter.
October 4th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Marc wrote: “Not that the GOP has any monopoly on this sort of hypocrisy. Democrats are just as adept; millions of them spent the last two years of the Clinton administration rationalizing away Big Bill’s sleaze.”
“Just as adept.”
So how is it now a strawman to say that Marc claims Clinton’s BJ coverup was somehow equivalent to Bush’s lies.
Marc subsequently agreed that Bush’s lies are felonies to Clinton’s misdemeanors, but I think he should acknowledge that his “just as adept” formulation left the door wide open for misinterpretation.
October 4th, 2005 at 8:00 pm
BB, Clearly you have no daughter, or certainly one old enough to be preyed upon by a powerful old man and left her and her family name equated to what he got from her. Pathetic.
At long last have you no sense when it is time to just shut the F up!
October 4th, 2005 at 8:32 pm
Reg.. let me see if I got this right… JFK was able to resisit the entreaties of his own military and hard line advisors as well as stand firm in the brinksmanship with Kruschev to avoid nuclear war over Cuba… but Bill Clinton could not resisit the wiles of a 21 year old ‘ho and was willing to risk all of the political capital invested him by 10 millions of Democrats! Standing up to Saddam is one thing, but of that thong! Now tell me, did Syd Blumenthal coach you on those lines, or did u make them up all by yourself?
If in fact, you are right.. and Bill and his pecker were rendered seneless by the comely Ms Lew, than all I can say is thank God such a self-centered, mindless, will-less, frivolous man is no longer able to access the nuclear button. What a concept… Clinton as victim of his INTERN!
Let me tell you something as a FATHER…. Lewinsky may be a gold-digging, overweight, easy to mock skank. But make no mistake… she is the victim here. And she will pay dearly the rest of her life, while CLinton (who got disbarred over this) will sell books and $200,000 a pop speeches.
It is ipso facto absurd to characterize the power relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky as anything less than about 1000 to 1.
I cant believe you’re off on this crap Reg. Should Mr. Lewinsky have also sat down his daughter and told her not to wear thongs or short skirts because some other weak-willed narcicisstic man might be tempted to rape her? Or as Marky48 says, to my horror, that SHE was the “serial crotch-hunter?”
I dont care if she was School Whore, she’d need another thirty years of sleeping around to even achieve half of scum-bag Clinton’s crotch-hunting. The 21 year old intern is a crotch hunter and the 50 year old President of the United States is just a weak-willed middle-aged man? I finally get it. (And Tom DeLay is just an aggressive advocate who pushes but doesnt break the rules!)
You guys need a shock Feminist Consciousness treatment! I dont know whether to laugh out loud or to wretch.
I can tell you as a lowly college adjunct prof that I measure and monitor every movement and every conversation and contact with my female grad students (all over 21) to make sure they do not feel intimidated or coerced or manipulated or harrassed by the measly power I exercise over them. Guess Im lucky (or is it unlucky) that none of them are “serial crotch-hunters.” Jesus, how disgusting.
Bunkerbuster: I have decided to not click you off from this website only because with each post you demonstrate a flagrant and rather amusing ignorance. “Just as adept” you bet, mofo. I certainly did say that democrats and republicans are equally adept at going into denial over the sins and omissions of their respective party “leaders.” you have proven that point about ten times in this thread, thank you. How you think that phrase equates the errors of Bush and Clinton is beyond me. If it makes you feel better to keep putting words in my mouth, even as I clearly define and clarify what I meant… by all means go ahead. If you continue at this pace, I will be forced, however, to send you the private email Im getting about you… You’ve become quite a little sideshow! Sort of like the bearded lady–or the man with no head. In the meantime, I suggest you invest in a football helmet and some ear plugs because you have clearly been in one busted bunker too many… what a trip you are!
October 4th, 2005 at 9:25 pm
Marc: if my posts are so ignorant and amusing, why not simply debunk them as I and others have of yours?
Your heavy reliance on ad hominem surely leads some readers to believe it’s all you’ve got.
And for the record, I am not in denial about anything Clinton did.
My point has been that you have exaggerated his transgressions, failed to put his presidency into historical and political context and refuse to measure his weaknesses against his strengths.
And you really give your game away by declaring that you “decided” not to kick me off the web site.
We now have it in your own hand that, while you feel free to drool goober after goober of juvenile insult and bargain basement belittlement, when someone responds, you feel justified to “click them off the web site.” What’s worse, the small mindedness this shows or your compulsion to brag about it?
October 4th, 2005 at 9:36 pm
Marc, JFK may had stood up to mr K but I really think his history of “standing up” to attractive women is not where you want to go. And I don’t think they were all his age either!
October 4th, 2005 at 9:48 pm
JFK isn’t the guy you want to invoke in contrast to Clinton. You sort of shoot yourself in the foot with the first sentence…
Arthur Schlesinger coached me but I forgot what he said.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Also, the suggestion that Clinton raped Lewinsky is far more disgusting, flagrantly dishonest and pure bullshit than anything I could dream up about this issue. Frankly, that’s a notion that could use some “Feminist Shock Consciousness” because you are treating a 21-year old as though they’re completely infantile and incapable of consent, much less seduction. Of course she didn’t demonstrate maturity, but she damned well should have know better, as Clinton should have, and it’s as insulting to women to suggest that by their twenties they aren’t capable of making rational decisions regarding sexual activity. Also I wouldn’t follow taking on the mantle of father-figure with stuff like “gold-digging skank”…you actually seem to have a far lower opinion of Lewinsky than I do. The 1000 to 1 power ratio bit was certainly true when it comes to stuff like nukes, tax policy and access to the media, but when you pair a 55 year old man, regardless of his status, with a 21 year old woman and put sex on the table, it’s a totally ridiculous assertion.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
The thing that’s weird about your approach to this is that all I’m doing is taking Lewinsky at her word. Is a 21-year old woman also incapable of being honest about their motivations. And of course she’s the victim…but she’s the victim of her own foolishness, to a very great extent. I’m not exonerating Clinton, but Clinton would make millions and write memoirs, Lewinsky or no. I’m not entirely sure, based on the personality traits exhibited to date, that Lewinsky is now or ever will be sorry that she grabbed her 15 minutes and became a household word. After all, we’re living in a country where Martha Stewart’s favorability ratings went up after she went to prison, people eat worms on television, and O.J. can draw a crowd signing footballs. Nobody’s immune to this, so I wouldn’t sentimentalize Monica.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:30 pm
I looked at Marc’s comment again and I think I mistook his rape reference. I’m assuming on reflection it was a hypothetical and not a direct reference to the Clinton affair.
October 4th, 2005 at 10:47 pm
“The 1000 to 1 power ratio bit was certainly true when it comes to stuff like nukes, tax policy and access to the media, but when you pair a 55 year old man, regardless of his status, with a 21 year old woman and put sex on the table, it’s a totally ridiculous assertion.”
If you are a 55 year old MAN Reg, a 21 year old is a child for god sake. What you are saying is the President of the United States was not a mature MAN, but just another run-of-the-mill low classed pecker-headed opportunist.
It could be more understandable if he didn’t have a daughter himself not much younger. God damn Reg, how can you be finding excuses for it?
October 4th, 2005 at 11:24 pm
Yes, Reg.. the rape reference was NOT to Monica, it was generic and hypothetical. HOWEVER, I am as inclined to believe Juanita Brodderick’s allegation as I am to believe Clinton’s denial.
I chose JFK on purpose because of his womanizing. I dont think we look upon him as a victime of wily seductresses. He was an adulterer, period. We dont make excuses for him. We dont call his lovers skanks and whores (though some were). We grant him full agency for his actions. I suggest you do the same for Clinton.
When the President of the U.S. needs to reaffirm his ego with a 21 yr old — especially if she’s a floozy– we have some real problems. Back when this stuff was happening, the Dems would vociferously argue that Clinton’s private life did not and should not reflect on his public life. I always thought, by contrast, that they perfectly reflected each other. Clinton was and is an oily con artist, trimmer, cheater, and liar in BOTH his public and private life. You can have him.
October 5th, 2005 at 12:17 am
LOL!! a “generic and hypothetical” rape reference? Sounds like a phrase thought up by an inept White House flak, not someone posing as a journalist.
Why such desperation?
Marc writes: “Clinton was and is an oily con artist, trimmer, cheater, and liar in BOTH his public and private life.”
But if Clinton’s public life is so soiled, why can’t Marc limit himself to discussion of the alleged foul public deeds?
Who did Clinton con? Where and when did he “trim” or “cheat” or “lie” outside matters related to his private life? Or is this another of Marc’s “generic and hypothetical” descriptions?
October 5th, 2005 at 12:30 am
“Clinton was and is an oily con artist, trimmer, cheater, and liar in BOTH his public and private life”
Marc, maybe I’m misinterpreting your comparison with JFK, but you’re not making the claim that adultery makes a political leader incompetent, are you? I’m absolutely no Clinton fan, but, all questions of sexual harrassment aside, to argue that discretions in a public figure’s private life–particularly one as COMMON as adultery–”perfectly” reflect that person’s public life… well, let’s just say you’re ruling out a very, very high percentage of the male population. Certainly all those oily 60′s free-lovin’ Dems would be out, but then there’s the frighteningly long Repub list of the philanderin’ types… *gulp*
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/66851/index.php
October 5th, 2005 at 1:15 am
I was about to turn in when I decided to make one more pass. Well you did it again, Marc, So I have to reply. I don’t know where you’ve been the last forty years but JFK has had plenty of people covering for him or making excuses. Want an example? I’d like a dollar (inflationary times you know) for every time I’ve heard Ben Bradlee say he saw or heard of no hanky panky when he was WH Correspondent for NEWSWEEK. But more to the point Kennedy did not have a deranged billionaire and a “vast Right Wing Conspiracy” after his ass sponsering civil suits and unleashing a Special Prosecutor on his butt. If Adultary disqualifies then there goes FDR (Lucy Mercer and Missy Lehand).
And speaking oif Rosevelt, he could be pretty devious, no downright oily, at times as those times required. Why do you think Burns called him both a lion and a fox? So you say Clinton was an oily con artist and cheater in his public life? Examples? I suspect we’re talking about politics here. Did he lie? About public affairs? Consider FDR’s sctions to get us into WWII, Lots of hydocarbons there! My guess is that you didn’t agree with his policies. But he pretty much did what he said he was going to do. End welfare as we know it. Attempt to get a program of health care for all, Promote foreign trade, and so on.
Well that’s all. And so to bed.
October 5th, 2005 at 1:30 am
I am not, for a moment, stepping into the political aspects of this argument. However as for:
“..Let me tell you something as a FATHER…. Lewinsky may be a gold-digging, overweight, easy to mock skank. But make no mistake… she is the victim here. And she will pay dearly the rest of her life, while CLinton (who got disbarred over this) will sell books and $200,000 a pop speeches.
“It is ipso facto absurd to characterize the power relationship between Clinton and Lewinsky as anything less than about 1000 to 1…”
Marc is absolutely right.
Reg, I usually agree with you. But not on this one. This isn’t a feminist issue. As Jim Russell said, the woman was a child. And the power relationship—whether it’s 1000 to 1m or 50 to one, or 37.8765 to 1—is hugely uneven by any standard.
For me, the moment that Bill Clinton went off the boards morally and ethically is when he said that he…â€did not have sex with THAT woman..!” (BTW, this has nothing to do with impeachment or resignation issues. I’m purely talking character here.)
He said it as if she was nothing. As if she was a lying whore who sickened him, who deserved only disgust and approbation. And he COULD say such a thing, of course, and nearly get away with it because the power and believability ratio between him and Ms. Lewinsky was….what?…1000 to 1? 100,000 to 1?
If Monica were my sad, foolish, insecure, childish daughter about whom the President of the United States made such a lying, venal pronouncement…… I tell you truly….I’d have wanted to kill the motherfucker.
And rightly so.
October 5th, 2005 at 5:49 am
reg was right in that it really and truly is unbelievable that a figure like Clinton can arouse such passion in folks so many years after he left the corridors of power.
But man, this is probably the first thread I’ve come across where he hasn’t been right about much else.
And now all this handwringing and what if-ing about a President Gore.
Guys, you really didn’t have this guy figured out years ago in the 80′s with the whole PMRC crap and his hand-holding with Focus on the Family?
Anyway, there have been some great books written about Gore. The best, in my opinion are, from the right, “Gore: A Political Life” by Bob Zelnick
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895263262/
and from the left, “Al Gore: A User’s Manual” by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1859848036/
You should also check out this review of Joshua Frank’s book “Left Out”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/engel9.html
And here’s an account of Russia’s view of the Clinton-Gore legacy.
http://www.exile.ru/feature/feature91.html
October 5th, 2005 at 6:32 am
To the extent that discussion of political leaders dwells on their character, morals and private lives, the public is made more vulnerable to the kind of bullshit that gets people like George W. Bush elected.
Political leaders, especially presidents, should be judged only on the results they achieve and that should be assessed within the context of the political and historical environment in which they served. When we look at Clinton this way, we can perhaps learn what part of his legacy the Democrats would do well to emulate and what part they would do well to cast aside.
The goofy OMP (onanistic moral preening) of imagining to be Lewinsky’s parents takes the discussion far beyond reason.
October 5th, 2005 at 8:17 am
I haven’t exonerated Clinton of anything…I think his behavior was pathetic and disgusting. BUT I also think you folks are being unbelievably naive about Lewinsky. I don’t consider her a child or incapable of making some very calculated moves. Who’s behavior was worse? Clinton’s obviously…because of both his (alleged) maturity and his rather awesome responsibilities beyond his personal desires. But this reduction of Lewinsky to simply a victim of Clinton’s status as a powerful figure is absurd. I absolutely agree with Blumenthal (who showed far more integrity than Hitchens in this affair, incidentally) that she consciously chose to go as far with Clinton as she could because of his power and charisma. That’s an indefensible choice and had she not made it I doubt Clinton would have tried to seduce her. This is a lot of he-said/she-said, but in this case I’m basing my opinion on what she said as much as anything. I actually believe Clinton lost the moral ground when he acted like an idiot and allowed his attraction to an intern to get the best of him, not when he tried to avoid public humiliation over it.
I think it’s less subjective to take Lewinsky’s version of her actions as some semblence of truth than to treat this like a case of the CEO forcing himself on an employee who he can fire. Lewinsky was an intern, not somebody who needed to keep a paying job. So the issue of Clinton’s power is really about her own perception and desire and total lack of discretion or self-respect. Personally, if I had a daughter who had the opportunity to screw, say, Brad Pitt and she did it consensually, I’d blame her for making an ass out of herself. My assumption is that lot’s of guys in the positon of a Bradd Pitt (hypothetical) exploit their ability to easily attract women for the wrong reasons. I’ve got no control over or interest in the type of person Mr. Pitt is, but I’d be very angry at someone I cared about allowing themselves to act like a groupie. Powerful, rich, famous men can obviouly assert themselves with some women on those assets alone, but the fact that many women seek them out for those reasons says at least as much about the women as it does about the men.
My $2 & 2cents…
October 5th, 2005 at 8:38 am
“What you are saying is the President of the United States was not a mature MAN, but just another run-of-the-mill low classed pecker-headed opportunist.”
Not run of the mill, and “low-classed” in the GOOD sense.
With rare exceptions (Jimmy Carter & Harry Truman. Certainly not Eisenhower, who as I recall was screwing a younger woman who was one of his troops) the kind of guys who seek the presidency are pretty pathological in their ambitions and appetites. I don’t see “Presidential material” as necessarily a compliment to a man’s character. You need to be made out of some pretty strange stuff which is why I value competence, intellect and some sort of often deceptive and complex “meta-character” over the kind of personal traits or one-on-one character I’d value in a friend. There’s a level on which these guys strike me as more than a little crazy and, to a greater degree than I care to really contemplate, toxic personalities.
October 5th, 2005 at 8:53 am
If Monica was a victim the culprit was not Clinton but the Most Rev. Ken Starr who sicced the FBI on her in order to stamp out illicit sex in the White House! Her testimony certainly didn’t indicate any regrets and I suspect she was a lot more mature about this than a lot of her “protectors” on this thread have been. And good morning to you too!
October 5th, 2005 at 8:56 am
“He said it as if she was nothing.”
He said it the way the overwhelming majority of adulterous men would say it. That he said it on television makes it far more problematic, but it didn’t surprise me. It was obvious he was lying, but I really couldn’t have cared less aside from the political ramifications. I was frankly just pissed the country got dragged into a couple of people’s lame, behind-closed-doors activities. My wife is fascinated by that stuff but it bores the shit out of me. The whole Monica affair at the level of the individuals directly involved struck me more for its utter banality than as anything shocking, given what we presumably know about human behavior.
October 5th, 2005 at 10:49 am
Reg… Of course Lewinsky was making calculated moves. Over the years of observing my son’s friends and schoolmates, I’ve seen some teenage girls who have honed Mata Hari moves worthy of a 35 year old. But, 21, despite our drinking age laws, ain’t that mature. In fact, according to the new MRI research available in the last ten years, brain maturity doesn’t occur until the early 20′s, some neural scientists pegging it, at an average, at about 25 (which sounds about right to me). And this was not a terribly emotionally mature girl, from what we can suss at a distance.
But was she behaving seductively with Clinton? Obviously. But he was the adult, and the boss, and the ultra powerful adult. Burden’s on him. Just to be clear, I’m in no way suggesting that this was sexual harassment. It’s a moral and ethical issue, not a legal one.
Now about “I didn’t have sex with *that* woman,” it wasn’t the fact that Clinton denied it. Of course he denied it—as you said—as most adulterous men likely would. It was the way he denied it, and what he implied about Lewinsky in his use of words or tone. Such things, I suppose, are in the eye of the beholder. But I honestly can’t think of a way to let Clinton off the hook for the volumes he conveyed—falsely—about Lewinsky’s character, by the manner in which he issued that one sentence denial….given on television, by the most powerful man in the world. She was expendable in his efforts to get his own sorry ass out of the hot seat. Not okay.
And, yeah, if she’d been my kid, I’d've been plenty pissed at her, and dismayed by and disappointed at her outrageous behavior and lack of judgment. But, about him I’d've had a whole different set of feelings—specifically the aforementioned punching his lights out thing (except that I’m a 5’4â€, 107 lb. female, and punching lights out isn’t my strong suit, so I’d likely have to find a different alternative.)
October 5th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Which is why we have the 2nd Amendment…
October 5th, 2005 at 11:02 am
“according to the new MRI research available in the last ten years, brain maturity doesn’t occur until the early 20′s”
And in far too many men, when it comes to their crotch, not until they literally lose the capacity.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:02 am
Rosedog.. good for you. I would have softened up the big lout with some sucker punches before you moved in to finish him off.
Rich: No Im hardly saying adultery is a disqualifier. What Im saying is that the same disgusting way he handled that encounter is the same disgusting way he conducted public policy.
RLC: I doubt if Im going to politically convert u at this late date so I will be very very brief. Clinton’s execution of retarded Rickey Ray Rector in the middle of his NH primary was one of the most vile acts of a poltiician in my lifetime and gave. I believe that would qualify as a lie… no? The lie that this brain dead man wasnt brain dead and had to be executed to prove that Clinton was tough on black murderers? It certainly gace lie to Clitnon’s entire lip-biting act of purporting to govern as some sort of enlightened humanist.
How about the lies Clinton employed as soon as he got in power to coerce half of his party to vote for GHW Bush’s NAFTA? A job killing pro corporate program he passed off as a benefit for American workers? You dont think it was a dirty oily lie to campagin on a platform of ending welfare as we know it to be replaaced by a more comprehensive system and then go ahead an approve the draconian Republican version which reduced not expanded services? That doesnt qualify as a lie?
Or in the wake of the OklahomA City bombings, to lie to the country and to congress, in order to pass the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act? An act which took advantage of the bombing to add 53 new categories to capital punishment and to effectively suspend habeus corpus for death penatly inmates? Or Clinton’s “immigration reform” which abolished due process for most deportees, gave way to the summary deportation of 30,000 people and continues to divide families today. Does that qualify as merely an abomination, rather than as a lie? How about Clinton’s border policy? IMposing Operation Gatekeeper and all the subsequent lockdowns still in place today.. a nifty little policy that at last count has led to about 4500 people losing their lives– forced to cross thru barren deserts and mountains just as Clinton admin officials had planned it. I made myself sick. Im done.
July 25th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Descriptions of poker pubs their atmosphereswnv
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:24 pm
sports picks sports picks
sports picks free sports picks free
November 19th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Se casino en ligne gratuit tendre équipe paralyser ébrécher meilleurs casinos en ligne cheval résider empocher poser en l”air meilleures promotions en ligne loqueteux répandre acheter jouer incliner déposer!
November 20th, 2007 at 7:10 am
ZumUnglück regole poker bluff kansas gambling fiume associazione blackjack slotmaschine spielen gioco roulette cafe gara di acuto strategie poker keno alzare ditta kansas meccanico secondi?
November 20th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Bist giochi giochi online di casino” direttamente sequenza blackjack crack rebel poker figura empirepoker ciclo unitario banco gutshot tavolo multigicotori poker cambio spaziatore otto lordo imballato.
December 25th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Call la française des jeux vig straighten online rank bullets verizon lg ringtones nuts airfares wiseguy multiplayer face crack advance cash day loan pay payday pineapple even society!
January 25th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Please download free hindi ringtones showdown bet crack roulette partypoker neutral cricket phone ringtones ragged figure rabbits bible cancellation make ringtones free cage four basic hold.